J-S17002-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN ROBERT SROMOVSKY,

Appellant No. 2365 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 7, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001137-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 05, 2019

Appellant, John Robert Sromovsky,1 appeals from the judgment of 

sentence of 21⁄2-12 months’ incarceration, imposed following his conviction for 

simple assault after a second trial. In his appeal, Appellant challenges the 

trial court’s determination that his double jeopardy rights did not bar his 

second trial, that the court erred (at both trials) by refusing to admit video 

evidence depicting events that occurred after the assault, and that the 

Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. After careful review, 

we affirm. 

____________________________________________

1 As Appellant was employed as a Pennsylvania State Trooper, and acting in 

that capacity when he committed the offense at issue, we also refer to him as 

“Trooper Sromovsky” in this memorandum. News reports indicate that 

Appellant was fired by the State Police following his sentencing in this case, 

however, that information is not contained in the certified record. 
J-S17002-19

- 2 -

The trial court summarized the facts adduced at Appellant’s first trial,

2

held on November 15-16, 2017, as follows:

On the evening of January 27, 2017, Trooper Revels of the 

Pennsylvania State Police made a vehicle stop. He determined 

that the operator[, Lorenzo Lopez,] was impaired and would be 

arrested for DUI. During the handcuffing of [Lopez], he tensed 

his arms causing the trooper and Officer Cavanaugh who was 

acting as backup to use a MODERATE degree of force to pull his 

arms behind his back and cuff him. This entire process was 

captured on Trooper Revels[’] dash mounted camera. Once 

cuffed, [Lopez] became visibly upset and began to cry. When 

Trooper Revels went to place him in his cruiser, [Lopez] went limp 

and was uncooperative[,] requiring Trooper Revels and Officer 

Cavanaugh to ... stuff him into the cruiser. At some point during 

the placing [of Lopez] into the cruiser, Trooper Revels said into 

his microphone, “he’s fighting me.” Those words resulted in six 

troopers responding to the scene of the vehicle stop. When they 

arrived, [Lopez] was seated in the front seat of Trooper Revels[’]

cruiser, was cuffed behind his back, was seat belted and, though 

crying, was otherwise not acting out.1

1 These objective facts were recorded by Trooper Revels[’]

dashboard camera[,] which he had turned to face [Lopez] 

once [Lopez] was placed in the vehicle.

When Trooper Sromovsky responded to the scene of the vehicle 

stop, he went immediately to the vehicle where [Lopez] was 

seated. He did not make any inquiry of Trooper Revels as to what 

had prompted the, “he’s fighting me” statement. Upon seeing 

[Lopez], Trooper Sromovsky engaged him verbally[,] and the 

dashboard camera show[ed] that[,] shortly thereafter[,] [Lopez]

was struck once, and possibly twice in the face.

Trooper Sromovsky, contrary to Pennsylvania State Police Policy, 

did not report having struck [Lopez]. Neither did any other 

trooper on the scene

2

report that [Lopez] had been struck. Once 

Trooper Sromovsky’s supervisors became aware of what had 

____________________________________________

2 The trial court did not provide a separate summary of the facts for Appellant’s 

second trial in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, however, there is no indication 

in the record, or the parties’ briefs, that the trials differed as to the underlying 

facts. 
J-S17002-19

- 3 -

occurred[,] they investigated the matter and ultimately charged 

him with [s]imple [a]ssault, [o]fficial [o]ppression, [t]erroristic 

[t]hreats[,] and [h]arassment.

2 The record was unclear as to whether any other trooper 

actually saw the striking.

A jury trial was held from November 14 to November 16, 2017. 

The jury acquitted Trooper Sromovsky of [o]fficial [o]ppression 

and [t]erroristic [t]hreats. They hung on [s]imple [a]ssault.

During her closing argument, Assistant District Attorney [Cynthia 

B.] Morgan stated, 

the next thing that everybody talked about was Mr. Lopez 

somehow deserved to get hit, that because he was drunk, 

that because there was marijuana found in a car seat, that 

was a big thing, there was a child’s car seat, so he’s a really 

bad dude, he’s a really bad person, he’s an illegal 

immigrant. We never brought that out, but that was the 

first question on cross-examination. So because he’s an 

illegal immigrant, because there was marijuana in the car 

and because he’s drunk and intoxicated, that he somehow 

deserved to get hit. 

[This satement] prompt[ed] defense counsel to move for a 

mistrial[,] which [the court] denied.

The Commonwealth ... signaled its intent to retry [Appellant] on 

[s]imple [a]ssault and [h]arassment[,] [which] prompt[ed] 

[Appellant to file a] [m]otion to [d]ismiss on double jeopardy 

grounds and/or for prosecutorial misconduct during the 

Commonwealth’s closing argument.

Trial Court Opinion (TCO1), 2/16/18, at 1-2 (citation omitted). The trial court 

denied the motion to dismiss by order dated February 16, 2018, as indicated 

by the trial court docket; however, that order does not appear in the certified 

record.
J-S17002-19

- 4 -

Appellant’s second trial occurred on May 14-16, 2018, at the conclusion 

of which the jury found Appellant guilty of simple assault.3 Subsequently, on 

June 7, 2018, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 21⁄2-12 months’

incarceration. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial 

court denied on July 31, 2018. 

On August 8, 2018, Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He also 

filed a timely, court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement August 29, 2018. 

The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on September 26, 2018, which 

substantially incorporates its February 16, 2018 opinion. 

Appellant now presents the following questions for our review:

Trial I

i. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by denying 

[Appellant]’s post-verdict motion to dismiss the indictment

on the grounds that re-prosecuting [him] would violate the 

provisions of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and the

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

ii. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by denying 

[Appellant]’s request to play the entirety of the MVR video

and take evidence from troopers and officers which depicted 

Mr. Lopez acting violently towards the arresting officers 

shortly after he was struck by [Appellant]?

Trial II

iii. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by denying 

[Appellant]’s request to play the entirety of the MVR video

and take evidence from troopers and officers which depicted 

____________________________________________

3 The trial did not include the charge of harassment, which the Commonwealth 

withdrew on June 7, 2018. 
J-S17002-19

- 5 -

Mr. Lopez acting violently towards the arresting officers 

shortly after he was struck by [Appellant]?

iv. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion in denying 

[Appellant]’s post-sentence motion to dismiss the

indictment based upon prosecutorial misconduct?

Appellant’s Brief at 3-4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted, issues 

renumbered). 

We begin by addressing Appellant’s double jeopardy claims, issues (i)

and (iv). Appellant “argues that he cannot be re-tried [for simple assault] 

without being put twice in jeopardy for the same act and injury sustained by 

Mr. Lopez.” Id. at 18. The trial court rejected this claim, reasoning that: “As 

the elements of [s]imple [a]ssault are not identical to those of [o]fficial 

[o]ppression, and as each require proof of an element the other does not 

require, retrial on the charge[] of [s]imple [a]ssault [is] not barred on double 

jeopardy grounds.” TCO1 at 4-5. We agree with the trial court. 

“The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States through the 

Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall ‘be subject 

for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.’”

Commonwealth v. Decker, ... 664 A.2d 1028, 1029 ([Pa. 

Super.] 1995) (citing U.S. CONST. amend. 5). “Furthermore, the 

Double Jeopardy Clause ... protects against a second prosecution 

for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second 

prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects 

against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Id.

“To determine whether a defendant’s protection against multiple 

punishments for the same offense has been violated, this 

Commonwealth applies the test set forth in Blockburger v. U.S., 

284 U.S. 299 ... (1932).” Commonwealth v. Beckwith, ... 674

A.2d 276, 279 ([Pa. Super.] 1996).

The U.S. Supreme Court explained this test as follows:
J-S17002-19

- 6 -

In both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution 

contexts, this Court has concluded that where the two 

offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot 

survive the “same-elements” test, the double jeopardy bar 

applies. The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as 

the “Blockburger” test, inquires whether each offense 

contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they 

are the “same offence” and double jeopardy bars additional 

punishment and successive prosecution.

United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 ... (1993).

We note that “the ‘same-elements’ test of Blockburger has long 

been followed in this Commonwealth” and its application “requires 

a comparison of the elements of the offenses to determine 

whether each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does 

not.” Commonwealth v. Caufman, 541 Pa. 299, 303 ... ([Pa.] 

1995) (citations omitted). When making such a comparison, 

overlap in proof between the two prosecutions does not establish 

a double jeopardy violation. Beckwith, 674 A.2d at 279.

Commonwealth v. Jackson, 10 A.3d 341, 344–45 (Pa. Super. 2010). The 

statues in question are defined, in pertinent part, as follows:

Official Oppression

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking 

advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a 

misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is 

illegal, he:

(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, 

mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other 

infringement of personal or property rights; or

(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment 

of any right, privilege, power or immunity.

18 Pa.C.S. § 5301.

Simple Assault

[]Except as provided under section 2702 (relating to aggravated 

assault), a person is guilty of assault if he:
J-S17002-19

- 7 -

(1) attempts to cause or intentionally, knowingly or 

recklessly causes bodily injury to another; ...

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701.

Instantly, Appellant does not cite to any controlling authority holding 

that simple assault and official oppression contain the same elements under 

the Blockburger test. Rather, he offers a novel argument that 

“mistreatment” under the official oppression statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301,

constitutes the same conduct that is proscribed by the simple assault statute, 

18 Pa.C.S. § 2701; therefore, he contends that simple assault is essentially a 

lesser-included offense of official oppression. See Appellant’s Brief at 21-23. 

In support of this claim, Appellant directs our attention to Commonwealth 

v. Manlin, 411 A.2d 532 (Pa. Super. 1979), citing the following passage from 

that opinion:

The evidence of record in this case shows that [the] appellant 

struck and kicked three inmates of Lehigh County Prison without 

justification or excuse in the course of disciplinary hearings 

conducted by appellant in his official capacity as Deputy Warden 

of that prison. Examining the challenged statute in the light of 

the conduct with which appellant was charged, ... it is obvious that 

[the] appellant should reasonably have understood that his 

conduct was proscribed by the statutory prohibition of 

“mistreatment.” “Mistreatment” is clearly an ascertainable 

standard; it is in common usage, is equated with abuse, and has 

a commonly understood meaning. 

Id. at 533-34. Appellant argues that Manlin establishes that “mistreatment”

and “abuse” are synonymous, and that the only “abuse” that occurred in this 

case was the striking of Mr. Lopez, which was the same conduct underlying 

his simple assault charge. Notably, the Manlin Court was dealing with the 
J-S17002-19

- 8 -

question of notice under the void-for-vagueness doctrine; it was not 

addressing whether simple assault is a lesser-included offense of official 

impression. Accordingly, Manlin is off-point, and provides no support for 

Appellant’s claim. 

Applying the Blockburger test, the official oppression statute clearly 

includes elements not present in the simple assault statute. For instance, the 

official oppression statute requires the accused be a “person acting or 

purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or 

purported capacity[,]” 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301, whereas the simple assault statute 

does not have such a requirement. A conviction for official oppression also 

requires that the accused know that his conduct is illegal, whereas the simple 

assault statute does not. The provision of the simple assault statute in 

question, by contrast, requires that the accused attempt or cause bodily 

injury, whereas, nothing in the official oppression statute requires proof of 

bodily injury or an attempt to cause bodily injury. 

That the same conduct violated two statutes does not establish that 

double jeopardy bars prosecution and punishment for both offenses. 

Beckwith, 674 A.2d at 279 (“Mere overlap in proof between the two 

prosecutions doesn’t establish a double jeopardy violation.”). Accordingly, we 

conclude that the Commonwealth’s prosecution of Appellant for simple assault 
J-S17002-19

- 9 -

at his second trial was not precluded by double jeopardy principles following 

his acquittal for official oppression at his first trial.4 

Alternatively, even assuming that simple assault is a lesser-included 

offense of official oppression as Appellant contends,

5 Appellant’s second trial 

should not have been barred by his double jeopardy rights. As astutely noted 

by the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth’s Brief at 10-12, because 

Appellant was tried for both offenses at his first trial, and because the jury 

acquitted him of the ostensibly greater-included offense, but failed to reach a 

verdict on the ostensibly lesser-included offense, his second trial for the 

lesser-included offense was not barred by his double jeopardy rights. 

____________________________________________

4

Indeed, it is not surprising, especially in the context of this case, why a jury 

could arrive at different conclusions with regard to Appellant’s guilt under each 

statute. Appellant admitted that he struck Mr. Lopez, and, in any event, the 

video evidence was conclusive as to that fact. However, Appellant stated his 

belief that his conduct was not illegal:

Q. Having now reviewed the totality of the circumstances policies 

and the use of force policies, sir, do you believe today, as you did 

that evening, that your use of force with this individual was 

reasonable and necessary to effectuate the lawful arrest?

A. Yes.

N.T., 11/15/17, at 153. Thus, if the jury found his testimony credible, it could 

not have convicted Appellant for official oppression. However, that specific 

defense was not applicable to the crime of simple assault. Indeed, although 

the first jury acquitted Appellant of official oppression, it could not reach a 

decision as to simple assault. 

5 “A comparison of the above noted statutes ([o]fficial [o]ppression and 

[s]imple [a]ssault) reveals that [s]imple [a]ssault is indeed a lesser-included 

offense of [o]fficial [o]ppression.” Appellant’s Brief at 21. 
J-S17002-19

- 10 -

An analogous circumstance occurred in Commonwealth v. 

Buffington, 828 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 2003). In that case, the Commonwealth 

tried Buffington for both rape and the lesser-included offense of sexual 

assault. Id. at 1026. The jury acquitted him of rape, but failed to reach a 

verdict on sexual assault. The trial court then granted Buffington’s motion to 

bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds. Id. at 1027. On appeal, the Superior 

Court reversed that decision, and our Supreme Court affirmed the reversal, 

reasoning that:

Application of the double jeopardy bar is frequently addressed in 

the context of greater[-] and lesser[-]included offenses. For 

example, courts have held that, where a jury has not been 

charged on lesser[-]included offenses, an acquittal on the crime 

charged necessarily implies an acquittal on all lesser offenses 

encompassed by that charge, and, accordingly, double jeopardy 

would bar a second trial on a lesser included offense. This result 

[is] not obtained, however, in instances in which lesser-included 

offenses were expressly put before the jury, but the jury was 

unable to reach a verdict on those offenses. In such instances, 

the ordinary rule is that retrial on the lesser[-]included offense is 

constitutionally permissible.

Id. at 1029–30 (citations omitted).

Thus, even if Appellant is correct that simple assault is a lesser-included 

offense of official oppression, he is not entitled to relief, because he was tried 

for both offenses in his first trial and, despite returning a verdict of not-guilty 

on the charge of official oppression, the jury failed to reach a verdict on the

charge of simple assault. Accordingly, Buffington is controlling in this case, 

and Appellant’s retrial for an ostensibly lesser-included offense is not barred 

by double jeopardy principles. 
J-S17002-19

- 11 -

We next address Appellant’s second double jeopardy claim, in which he 

argues that his second trial should have been barred due to the 

Commonwealth’s alleged prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument 

during Appellant’s first trial. In this regard, Appellant argues that the 

“prosecutor improperly and prejudicially injected race and Mr. Lopez’s status 

as an illegal immigrant into the case in her closing argument....”

6

 Appellant’s 

Brief at 33. Appellant contends that that the prosecutor’s conduct was 

intended to deprive him of a fair trial and, therefore, that his second trial was 

barred by double jeopardy.

The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution and Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania 

Constitution prohibit retrial where prosecutorial misconduct during 

trial provokes a criminal defendant into moving for a mistrial. 

However, Article 1, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution offers 

broader protection than its federal counterpart in that the double 

jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits retrial 

of a defendant not only when prosecutorial misconduct is intended 

to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial, but also when 

the conduct of the prosecutor is intentionally undertaken to 

prejudice the defendant to the point of the denial of a fair trial.

Pennsylvania has adopted a strict remedy for intentional 

prosecutorial misconduct: Under Pennsylvania jurisprudence, it is 

the intentionality behind the Commonwealth’s subversion of the 

____________________________________________

6 Appellant also argues that the Commonwealth made similar comments 

during his sentencing hearing. However, Appellant did not present a separate 

sentencing claim in his brief, in his statement of the questions presented, nor 

in his Rule 1925(b) statement, despite having raised a sentencing issue in his 

post-sentence motion concerning the Commonwealth’s comments at the 

sentencing hearing. Accordingly, any sentencing claim related to the 

prosecutor’s comments at Appellant’s sentencing hearing are waived. 

Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) (“Any issues not 

raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”). 
J-S17002-19

- 12 -

court process, not the prejudice caused to the defendant, that is 

inadequately remedied by appellate review or retrial. By and 

large, most forms of undue prejudice caused by inadvertent 

prosecutorial error or misconduct can be remedied in individual 

cases by retrial. Intentional prosecutorial misconduct, on the 

other hand, raises systematic concerns beyond a specific 

individual’s right to a fair trial that are left unaddressed by retrial.

Commonwealth v. Lynn, 192 A.3d 194, 199–200 (Pa. Super. 2018)

(cleaned up).

However, because of the compelling societal interest in 

prosecuting criminal defendants to conclusion, our Supreme Court 

has recognized that dismissal of charges is an extreme sanction 

that should be imposed sparingly and only in cases of blatant 

prosecutorial misconduct. A mere finding of willful prosecutorial 

misconduct will not necessarily warrant dismissal of charges.

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 147 A.3d 7, 13 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation 

omitted). 

Again, in the Commonwealth’s closing argument during the first trial, 

the prosecutor stated:

The next thing that everybody talked about was Mr. Lopez 

somehow deserved to get hit, that because he was drunk, that 

because there was marijuana found in a car seat, that was a big 

thing, there was a child’s car seat, so he’s a really bad dude, he’s 

a really bad person, he’s an illegal immigrant. We never brought 

that out, but that was the first question on cross-examination. So 

because he’s an illegal immigrant, because there was marijuana 

in the car and because he’s drunk and intoxicated, that he 

somehow deserved to get hit.

N.T., 11/16/17, at 64. Appellant claims he immediately objected and 

requested a mistrial, however, the record suggests Appellant’s account of 

events is inaccurate. Appellant’s trial counsel immediately interjected: 

“Objection, your Honor. I would ask the jury be instructed. This is an 
J-S17002-19

- 13 -

outrageous argument. It has never been argued that his status as an illegal 

immigrant [was the] reason for the use of force in this case. It’s outrageous.” 

Id. (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant requested a curative instruction 

immediately after the prosecutor’s comment, not a mistrial.

However, Appellant did request a mistrial at the end of the 

Commonwealth’s argument, at which time the following exchange occurred:

[Defense Counsel]: [] I have a motion for mistrial. The 

outrageous statement made during the closing argument by the 

Commonwealth attorney that somehow my client operated upon 

the fact Mr. Lopez was an illegal immigrant and sought to injure 

him in light of that status is not only outrageous, it’s unfounded 

in the record.

What’s worse is the Commonwealth filed with you a request to 

admit the fact that Mr. Lopez was an illegal immigrant and to 

establish on the record during this trial his status as an illegal 

immigrant. I opposed that exactly for the reason that was just 

argued to this jury, that the admission of that evidence would be 

irrelevant and highly prejudicial. This [c]ourt allowed it to come 

in.

I assumed on the request of the Commonwealth, and at this point 

to have suggested to the jury with no basis in fact or law, that my 

client operated on that assumption to cause that man harm is so 

outrageous it can’t be cured by an instruction.

And secondly, should this [c]ourt grant the motion to [re]-try the 

case, I would ask that because of the intentional outrageous 

conduct of the prosecution [that] you preclude re-prosecution of 

Trooper Sromovsky.

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, Mr. Hoey’s first cross-examination 

question of that witness was you’re an illegal immigrant. That fact 

came out from the defense. That’s what I pointed out to the jury. 

That fact is on the record. Mr. Lopez was an illegal immigrant. 

He was Spanish speaking. He was sitting in the custody of the 

trooper and this was brought out that he somehow deserved to be 

punched in the face because of his dangerous and his threatening 

conduct, which was not the case throughout the course of the trial.
J-S17002-19

- 14 -

[Defense Counsel]: Regrettably for the Commonwealth, it was 

never established that my client knew at any point in time, if we’re 

parsing this out the way we have done it, in a test tube, that he 

has no idea what this fellow’s status was when he approached 

him. Zero. To suggest otherwise compounds the outrageousness.

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I never said that Trooper Sromovsky 

knew that he was an illegal immigrant. I talked about the crossexamination of Mr. Lopez was to belittle him, bring out his 

immigration, and to talk about his civil suit. That is what I talked 

about.

[Defense Counsel]: Well, if that were the case, then why would 

the Commonwealth have asked you to introduce that evidence? 

Secondly, that’s not what the Government argued. The 

Government argued if you are allowing somebody to beat 

somebody up because they’re an illegal immigrant, you’re 

condoning this behavior.

They never proved he knew that Lopez was an illegal immigrant 

or operated under that assumption to cause this man harm.

Id. at 72-74. The trial court did not explicitly deny Appellant’s motion for a 

mistrial. However, the trial court did include the following instruction to the 

jury before they retired to deliberate:

Now, also during the closing arguments there were objections by 

both sides as to, well, they didn’t say this and they didn’t say that. 

And I told you when we began on Tuesday that when you went to 

the jury room, it was your recollection, and your recollection 

alone, that was going to control everything. And I also told you 

before counsel argued that it was your recollection of the facts 

that controlled. So what they remember is not relevant. It’s what 

you remember and what you pulled out as the credible, believable 

evidence that you are going [to] make your decision based upon.

So to the extent that they argued factors that you don’t find to 

exist in the record, you simply ignore it. If you find that they 

argued something not in accordance with your recollection, you 

ignore it. If they argued something that does not directly bear on 

the facts of this case, that is, the interaction between the 

defendant and Mr. Lopez, you don’t consider that.
J-S17002-19

- 15 -

Again, whether somebody should be treated in one manner 

or not because they are an immigrant has got absolutely 

nothing to do with the case. It’s what occurred in the car 

between the defendant and Mr. Lopez. That’s what we’re 

looking to resolve. We’re not sending any messages or anything 

else. We are deciding that fact pattern.

In addition to the testimony of the witnesses, you’ve heard the 

arguments of counsel. They are not part of the evidence and 

should not be considered as such. Again, they’re there as an aide 

to help you in deciding the factual issues that you have to decide, 

having in mind that they argued in a way that favors the side they 

represent. Again, I remind you that it is the answers of the 

witnesses who appeared and testified before you and whose 

answers you found credible and believable that you are going to 

base your factual decision upon.

Id. at 91-92 (emphasis added). 

Following the verdict, Appellant filed a post-verdict motion seeking to 

dismiss the indictment (and therefore bar retrial) based on the allegation of 

prosecutorial misconduct discussed above. In its opinion accompanying the 

order denying the motion, the trial court reasoned:

Unfortunately, when [the prosecutor] responded to defense 

counsel’s argument[,] she made reference to Mr. Lopez’s status 

as an “illegal immigrant.” His status was NOT relevant to ANY 

issue in the case. While Mr. Lopez was questioned as to his 

immigration status by defense counsel ..., it was NOT commented 

upon by defense counsel in his closing. It should not have been 

touched upon in the Commonwealth’s closing. However, an 

improper reference in an otherwise permissible closing hardly 

evidences the egregious and pervasive conduct that is necessary 

to bar a retrial. 

TCO1 at 5-6. 

We agree with the trial court that the improper reference to Mr. Lopez’s 

immigration status did not warrant the remedy of precluding a second trial as 

sought by Appellant. First, there was only a single, isolated reference to Mr. 
J-S17002-19

- 16 -

Lopez’s status during the Commonwealth’s closing. Second, it was Appellant, 

not the Commonwealth, who first revealed Mr. Lopez’s immigration status to 

the jury. See N.T., 11/15/17, at 68. Indeed, during Appellant’s counsel’s 

cross-examination of Mr. Lopez, multiple questions were asked about his 

immigration status and related deportation proceedings. Id. Third, the 

prosecutor’s comment was not clearly referencing Appellant’s intent at all. 

The comment could easily be read, as the prosecutor claimed, to have been 

commentary on what the prosecutor believed to be the attempted 

assassination of the victim’s character, or victim-blaming, that Appellant’s 

attorney ostensibly engaged in while cross-examining Mr. Lopez. 

In the alternative, even if interpreted as a comment on Appellant’s 

intent, rather than on Appellant’s legal defense, the use of oratorical flair to 

suggest a motive for a crime is rarely grounds for a new trial, let alone grounds 

for the extreme remedy of barring retrial. “It is well settled that a prosecutor 

has considerable latitude during closing arguments and his arguments are fair 

if they are supported by the evidence or use inferences that can reasonably 

be derived from the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 

250 (Pa. Super. 2008). While Appellant suggested his motive for striking Mr. 

Lopez was merely to assert control, the jury was free to reject his testimony, 

and to find another motive for his actions. While proof of Appellant’s 

knowledge of the victim’s immigration status was not ironclad, there was at 

least some evidence that Appellant could have been acting on that belief, since 

Mr. Lopez was speaking in a mix of Spanish and broken English and had a 
J-S17002-19

- 17 -

Latino appearance, combined with Appellant’s otherwise inexplicable 

aggression toward a defenseless victim.

Fourth, the trial court’s instructions to the jury strongly suggested to 

them that they should ignore any references to the victim’s immigration 

status. Combined with the fact that Appellant first brought that status to the 

jury’s attention, and the fact that the prosecutor’s comment was brief and 

isolated, the prejudice suffered by Appellant was minimal. Accordingly, for 

these reasons, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comment was neither 

intended to provoke Appellant into seeking a mistrial, nor was it intentionally 

made to to deprive Appellant of a fair trial, and that barring a retrial was far 

too extreme of a remedy in the circumstances of this case. 

Finally, we address Appellant’s remaining two claims, which present an 

identical issue. Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it refused to permit him to introduce video evidence of Mr. Lopez’s 

conduct that occurred after Appellant struck him. This matter arose when the 

Commonwealth filed a motion in limine to exclude all post-assault video 

evidence. See Commonwealth’s Motion in Limine, 11/13/17, at 1-2. The 

trial court granted the motion. Appellant now argues that he

was precluded from publishing to the jury that portion of the MVR 

[video] which records Mr. Lopez’s violent and confrontational 

interactions with five (5) Pennsylvania State Troopers and one (1) 

Parkesburg Borough Police Officer that were required to utilize 

extensive force in bringing Mr. Lopez from [] Trooper Revels’

vehicle to the caged State Trooper vehicle waiting nearby. That 

segment of the MVR lasts approximately ninety (90) seconds and 

immediately commences after Mr. Lopez was struck by Appellant. 

As such, it is temporally related to the instant offense and serves 
J-S17002-19

- 18 -

to reiterate and confirm the fears that Appellant had at the time 

he encountered, argued with and struck Mr. Lopez, moments 

before Lopez violently confronted six (6) law enforcement officers 

during the transfer of his person to a caged vehicle. It is 

respectfully argued that the trial court abused its discretion by 

failing to permit the jury to view the approximately two minutes 

worth of video footage/audio footage of the Revels[’] MVR which 

commenced immediately after Mr. Lopez was struck by Appellant.

Appellant’s Brief at 24. 

The trial court did not admit that portion of the video, reasoning that:

[Appellant] wished to show that after Mr. Lopez had been struck, 

that he, Mr. Lopez, resisted the troopers who were removing him 

from Trooper Revels’ vehicle. [Appellant]’s theory being that this 

conduct ... corroborated his ... belief that Mr. Lopez required the 

use of force against him while seated in Trooper Revels’ vehicle.

I ruled that what occurred after [Appellant] struck Mr. Lopez was 

irrelevant. It was irrelevant as the issue before the jury was what 

[he] knew from the radio communications he heard and what he 

observed upon arriving at the location of the stop through the 

moment he struck Mr. Lopez. Fortunately, all of this was 

OBJECTIVELY KNOWN by virtue of the audio and video played for 

the jury. What Mr. Lopez’s behavior was subsequently neither 

proved nor disproved any of the facts the jury was to consider in 

determining the charges against [Appellant]. As such, it was 

clearly inadmissible.

Trial Court Opinion, 9/26/18, at 3. 

We ascertain no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to grant 

the Commonwealth’s motion in limine. At both trials, the jury was able to 

view video evidence corroborating Appellant’s claim that force was required 

to detain Mr. Lopez before Appellant struck him. However, Mr. Lopez’s 

conduct after that event was plainly irrelevant to Appellant’s intent, as he 

could not possibly have been aware of Mr. Lopez’s future conduct when he 

struck him.
J-S17002-19

- 19 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/5/19